pray 5 times a day or we'll cut your head off

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Beheading is such a dull way to punish someone. Stoning is much more exciting and allows for more crowd participation. Only the ‘hands on’ approach will help remind the crowd of what they stand to lose if they don’t pray.

Which would take us back to the Roman days of the Gladiators.

[RedSea]

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-

 

A young cousin of mine, a Sacuudi born and bred, who I've met in Cardiff, Wales, insisted those who don't pray are gaalo, diinta ka baxay. It was my very first time hearing that. Intaaba la murmim, :eek: ayaa iga soo haray.

 

I obviously decided not to debate with that young man, since the terrible miseducation of Sacuudi system needs some time against the reality of Islaam.

Obviously he was right and you had no education in the subject matter therefore,even if you try to argue with him,you would still be wrong and he would be right.

 

What amazes me though is that we use to witness people,whom if they didn't understand something or had no understanding of it would question how,why,when,and who,but not just argue even if they have no idea of what they are talking about.

 

Miskiin Macruuf,the Prophet peace be upon said,"matraka Salaah,faqad kafarah",he who doesn't pray anymore,has become a disbeliever,it's the plain truth and nothing but the words of the beloved Prophet Muhammed peace be upon,so please question,seek answers,find out,then after wards argue whether or not you disagree but not the other way around for the sake of God.

 

thanks,

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Wale red seayow, wat cadesey inat seef-la-bood tahay. Its unislamic to twist basic truth: Islam does not condone the murder of inocent poeple who u deem have not praticed their faith. It is completely unnecessary to debate wither people should killed or not for not praying. Are there no more sane people? Its these sort of thing that paints our religion as a violent religion yet we are the first to denonce the "western media" for their false portrial of Islam. is it realy false when we incourage things like this. Its is often said by some muslims that islam and its followers are under attack. in truth, if anyone is attacking Islam or muslims, its other muslim or jahils running around with their cimaamads killing inocent poeple and blowing themselfs up in the name of islam. I could hardly belief that few days ago, we have had our first femile suicide bomber. Last time I checked, there were no Isreali's in Baidowa. People, we are here on this earth to proof our worth to No one but God, you must live and let live.

[Nur]

Ngonge writes;

 

" Beheading is such a dull way to punish someone. Stoning is much more exciting and allows for more crowd participation. Only the ‘hands on’ approach will help remind the crowd of what they stand to lose if they don’t pray. Unless of course they already had their hands cut off. "

 

 

Subxaanallah!

 

Allah says in Quraan: "Laa yus'alu cammaa yafcalu wa hum yus'aluun" Meaning: (Allah) is not questioned of His deeds, while (all others) are questioned ( By Allah)

 

You seem to be questioning the validity of Allahs law, with a tilt.

 

These words show either a serious direspect to the Law Giver, weakness of iman in Allah and day of judgment, his Books, Messages and Messengers, or a sheer ignorance of Islam in general, the price of such contempt of the law giver, this instance Allah is grave, you will only know the truth of this statement after death, I only pray that you quickly repent and approach your maker with humility. Dont please mortals to anger Allah.

 

Stoning is a superior and best fit deterrent punishment to administer for the discouragement of marraige infidelity ( not for prayer deserters ) Marriage infidelity is so bad a crime, not only does it cause irreparable family break up, bloody vendettas, unsupervised kids who grow to become criminals and drug addicts, thieves, and/or desease ridden societies, abortions aka killing of infants, jails infested with pervertion.

 

 

Nur

[RedSea]

^well taken,however, could you also say few things about the topic of the thread in general.

 

Naxar Nugaleed,it's hard to say anythhing to you as your whole mentality is based on Fox news like.

thanks in advance bro,

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by Nur:

Ngonge writes;

 

"

Beheading is such a dull way to punish someone. Stoning is much more exciting and allows for more crowd participation. Only the ‘hands on’ approach will help remind the crowd of what they stand to lose if they don’t pray. Unless of course they already had their hands cut off. "

 

 

Subxaanallah!

 

Allah says in Quraan: "Laa yus'alu cammaa yafcalu wa hum yus'aluun" Meaning: (Allah) is not questioned of His deeds, while (all others) are questioned ( By Allah)

 

You seem to be questioning the validity of Allahs law, with a tilt.

 

These words show either a serious direspect to the Law Giver, weakness of iman in Allah and day of judgment, his Books, Messages and Messengers, or a sheer ignorance of Islam in general, the price of such contempt of the law giver, this instance Allah is grave, you will only know the truth of this statement after death, I only pray that you quickly repent and approach your maker with humility. Dont please mortals to anger Allah.

 

Stoning is a superior and best fit deterrent punishment to administer for the discouragement of marraige infidelity ( not for prayer deserters ) Marriage infidelity is so bad a crime, not only does it cause irreparable family break up, bloody vendettas, unsupervised kids who grow to become criminals and drug addicts, thieves, and/or desease ridden societies, abortions aka killing of infants, jails infested with pervertion.

 

 

Nur

It's funny you should speak of God's laws when there is no such thing as stoning and beheading for people who don't pray in the Quran.

 

 

"Let there be no compulsion in religion"

[Qandalawi]

^^ What sort of punishment does the law says deserves one who never performs prayer.

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by Tukaale:

^^ What sort of punishment does the law says deserves one who never performs prayer.

The one that awaits that person after they pass. OR should we just make one up to punish them anyway? lol

[Fanisha]

Binu aadam ka qaarkood way jeclaan lahaayeen iney Aduun iyo aakhiraba dadka ku cadaabaan.. waxaas way ka helaan.

Bal Nuur arag siduu usoo booday uu warka ugu tiiqtiiq sadey markuu maqley wax dhagax lagu dilayo. He said Stoning is a superior

... looool

[NGONGE]

Nur,

 

I’m surprised you didn’t address the topic at hand and instead tried to read what was not there in my words. You are right though, I was indeed mocking and ridiculing and, brashly, I shall continue to do so.

 

Stop shaking your head though. I’m sure you have read me declaring myself a Muslim on countless occasions in this site. It’s tedious to always go back and remind you of this fact. However, since you allow your hothead to rule your senses, I limply have to state that fact once more. I am a Muslim ya sheikh Nur.

 

When I mock, I always mock attitudes, stances and behaviours. I don’t mock divine laws. Here, and after reading some of the responses on this topic I could not help but give such a retort. There is certainty in the replies you see. Those that support it believe 100% that they are correct! Those that don’t also seem to believe 100% that they are spot on. I’ve looked into this topic in the past and discovered that even amongst the scholars there has been varying differences of opinion. Because of that fact alone I didn’t want to preach on the correctness or otherwise of the topic itself. Nonetheless, my mischievous streak wouldn’t allow me to walk past without having a dig at the ignorance I observed.

 

A different Nomad than I would have been offended by your implied accusations but, again, my mischievous nature got the better of me and made me chuckle at your quick tempered reply rather than get angry or offended. Still, the fact that you replied and the message it gives (you’re sure to correct me if I’m wrong) obliges me to finally address the topic and, possibly, put your mind at rest.

 

From your reply, I get the impression that you’re in total agreement with the central point of this topic. In other words, you believe that he who does not pray IS an apostate and deserves to be killed. I only make this assumption because I reasoned that if you were not in agreement with this idea you would have tackled it in your post first before attempting to challenge my words, which were, at best, questionable.

 

Now, it’s my turn to say what I think of this punishment and declaration of Kufur. I’m not sure if you remember, but in a previous topic of yours, I once spoke about doubt and how it’s important that we have doubt in everything (other than Allah swt). Solid positions, immovable stances and certain beliefs are not things I subscribe to. Of course, things that are clear cut are not the ones I speak of here. What I question are those things that are open to interpretations. Our subject here is a case in point. The scholars have differed on it and though one is free to choose to side with any of their opinions one can’t possibly argue that it is the truth! Therefore, I was (and still) am reluctant to 100% declare that this opinion or that is the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth. Anything else, in my opinion at least, is nothing but ignorance.

 

Still, because I already declared my doubts on the subject, it automatically means that I am receptive to new arguments and convincing opinions and could be persuaded to move from one camp to the other. Of course, it will have to be a very good argument that will make me do so. Nonetheless, this receptiveness also makes me aware that one group might be correct! Now, if they’re correct, why am I not convinced?

 

I would carry on and answer the question myself but because of my mischievous nature (again) and desire to be tickled with the replies I’ll receive I’m compelled to leave this question for you (and anyone else reading this) to answer.

 

PS

Though there is a little doubt here too, I’m inclined to believe that you’re shrewd enough to read between the lines and (finally) get my drift.

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Nur,

 

I’m surprised you didn’t address the topic at hand and instead tried to read what was not there in my words. You are right though, I was indeed mocking and ridiculing and, brashly, I shall continue to do so.

 

Stop shaking your head though. I’m sure you have read me declaring myself a Muslim on countless occasions in this site. It’s tedious to always go back and remind you of this fact. However, since you allow your hothead to rule your senses, I limply have to state that fact once more. I am a Muslim ya sheikh Nur.

 

When I mock, I always mock attitudes, stances and behaviours. I don’t mock divine laws. Here, and after reading some of the responses on this topic I could not help but give such a retort. There is certainty in the replies you see. Those that support it believe 100% that they are correct! Those that don’t also seem to believe 100% that they are spot on. I’ve looked into this topic in the past and discovered that even amongst the scholars there has been varying differences of opinion. Because of that fact alone I didn’t want to preach on the correctness or otherwise of the topic itself. Nonetheless, my mischievous streak wouldn’t allow me to walk past without having a dig at the ignorance I observed.

 

A different Nomad than I would have been offended by your implied accusations but, again, my mischievous nature got the better of me and made me chuckle at your quick tempered reply rather than get angry or offended. Still, the fact that you replied and the message it gives (you’re sure to correct me if I’m wrong) obliges me to finally address the topic and, possibly, put your mind at rest.

 

From your reply, I get the impression that you’re in total agreement with the central point of this topic. In other words, you believe that he who does not pray IS an apostate and deserves to be killed. I only make this assumption because I reasoned that if you were not in agreement with this idea you would have tackled it in your post first before attempting to challenge my words, which were, at best, questionable.

 

Now, it’s my turn to say what I think of this punishment and declaration of Kufur. I’m not sure if you remember, but in a previous topic of yours, I once spoke about doubt and how it’s important that we have doubt in everything (other than Allah swt). Solid positions, immovable stances and certain beliefs are not things I subscribe to. Of course, things that are clear cut are not the ones I speak of here. What I question are those things that are open to interpretations. Our subject here is a case in point. The scholars have differed on it and though one is free to choose to side with any of their opinions one can’t possibly argue that it is the truth! Therefore, I was (and still) am reluctant to 100% declare that this opinion or that is the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth. Anything else, in my opinion at least, is nothing but ignorance.

 

Still, because I already declared my doubts on the subject, it automatically means that I am receptive to new arguments and convincing opinions and could be persuaded to move from one camp to the other. Of course, it will have to be a very good argument that will make me do so. Nonetheless, this receptiveness also makes me aware that one group might be correct! Now, if they’re correct, why am I not convinced?

 

I would carry on and answer the question myself but because of my mischievous nature (again) and desire to be tickled with the replies I’ll receive I’m compelled to leave this question for you (and anyone else reading this) to answer.

 

PS

Though there is a little doubt here too, I’m inclined to believe that you’re shrewd enough to read between the lines and (finally) get my drift.

This is unacceptable, Ngonge. Are you sure your muslim??

 

I kid, I kid.

 

I concur with your post.

[NASSIR]

I doubt this news is true , but there are Nomads trying to justify whatever is said of our religion even if it is wrong. Brothers, you are not doing any good for the religion if you justify that which is not justifiable or has no basis or foundation. It is a dangerous precedent to future Ijmas, which is the third principle source of Shariah law.

 

Not only it is wrong to pass and enforce capital punishment against the deviation of prayers but it is something that the Muslim community would never agree upon. Thoughts to defend such punishments would complicate matters, debase our religion, and increase the scarcity of the tolerance that our religious teaches us. Even, it is not easy to stone death someone who commits adultery unless we have four witnesses at the time and place of the incidence.

 

Let us not manifest hubristic confidence in everything said of our religion even if you don't know any knowledge that could back up your claims. Should these matters rise, I would discuss with religious scholars, make a research on the validity of strict laws in Islam and look to precedents, ESP at the time of the Caliphs.

[Socod_badne]

Someone prefers lapidation to decapitation, bid deal . But why limit ourselves to binary options, either 1 or the other. We can have both. The more the merrier.

 

 

RealityCheck,

 

I see you're still badgering Nur. Perhaps time for restraining order.

[Nur]

Ngonge bro.

 

Deeds are measured with the intentions that drive them, if your comments were directed against mortals on this forum with a constructive goal, then, there is nothing to worry about, but afer reading the satetment (with no disclaimer for sake of keeping confusion at bay) I aired my opinion, the statement depressed me, but, I am relieved, and I take your word for it.

 

 

You write:

 

" From your reply, I get the impression that you’re in total agreement with the central point of this topic "

 

 

Not quite, saaxiib. Let me repost responses that I have addressed to Xiin about the application of the xuduud, ( ARTICLE IS DATED BEFORE THE UIC VICTORY) and the necessity of the completion of the ground work before applying the Jurisprudence.

 

 

When we say Islamic, we have to make sure that we are branding it as genuine Islam, not a rigged system, otherwise, the damage to the brand name will be irreversible.

 

As for applying parts of islamic Sharia in Anarchist communities such as Mogadishu, we must recogocnize that Islamic Sharia is best applied when the ground work is done for its application, In Mogadishu, the foundations are not in place, the staff is not trained, triabalism remians to be a driving force ( Faqiih tolkii kama janno tago, meaning, a religious scholar does not enter paradise alone without his tribe, he is normally expected to go wherever they go, hell or heaven).

 

The Sharia courts in Mogadishu may not be conviction driven which is necessary but not sufficient condition for its success, in reality they are need driven, and for that matter the same courts can work in Watts, Los Anegles, Haarlem in New York, and in deadly Southeast Washington DC. Just approach mayors in these cities and you may be given the approval, once you weed out the criminals, the credit goes for the mayor in next election, and the selective Sharia clauses that bhelped him get votes is discarded.

 

The Sharia law is the culmination of many processes that should all be in place before it can be applied. Beginning with a sovereign territory, an educated citizenry who subscribe to it, a wise judicial system, and an ethical executive branch of government to enforce it. We must recognize that if majority of people are looting, its due to failure of governmemt to educate, lack of planning of resources for their needs or a general breakdown of law and order, work with Dawa groups that are successfull in converting Moriyans to a Muslim, and thirdly educate the masses through media.

 

 

Xiinfaniin walaal

 

You write:

 

But I am still not convinced (though admittedly I am fleeting with more questions than answers) about the rigidity of those processes you cited.

 

Answer:

 

Walaal Xiin , Sharia of Allah is a sacred ordinance, conforming to it is a sign of surrender to Allah, rejecting it is a sign of kufr, as such we must be diligent when presenting it for appication into our lives.

 

Sharia is applied after those whose affairs are in their hands ( Sovereign) have suurrendered to Allah in deed , as a mean for establishing an Islamic State to fulfil its duties entrusted to it by Allah SWT on earth to uphold justice, enjoing what is right and forbid what is evil. An Islamic state in turn has its requirements.

 

Adherence to Sharia law is a form of surrender to Allah's authority, its thus a from of worship, Allah SWT says : inil xukmu illaa lillah, amara allaa tacbuduu illaaa iyaah dhalikal diinul qayim, walaakinna aktharunnasi laa yaclamuun : Meaning; Law making is reserved for Allah SWT, He has ordered that you shall not worship other than Him, (because) that is the right way of life ( Deen) but most people do not realize (the fact) ( since any other judicial power constitutes to be a sovereign, other than Allah, adherence to its law is tantamount to worship othet than Allah )

 

Such a sacred ordinance can only be carried out by a competent entity like an Islamic State. The state has to be defined in terms of the Sharia auspices from which it will draws its legitimacy, in light of the Quraan and Sunnah. ( Not From Cofe Anan and UN)

 

The best definition of an Islamic State in modern times was the one adopted by the delegates of 31 Muslim scolars that convened in Karachi, Pakistan during the conference of ( Establishment Of An Islamic State ) held on the 21 - 24 of January 1951. Here are the set of conditions they have agreed upon as a consensus to be met before a state can be an Islamic State. ( below is my rusty translation from the original document in Arabic ):

 

 

1.The Real Power, behind legislation and establisihment of state should belong to ALLAH alone. ( TASHRIIC+ TAKWIIN) in Somali ( Maxaa la isugu tagay ( Qarannimo, Qabiil, Dhul?), maxaana la isku xukumayaa?)

 

2. There should not be any law, ordinance or a directive that conflicts with the Quraan and Sunnah.

 

3. The State should not be a geographically, ethnically, regionally, defined state. It should be established on a globalist scope for all mankind, transcending all temporal boundaries. ( Isreal is the only state applying the geographical clause above, it has no borders, just the area it can defend at any given time, because its foolishness to draw borders that can not be defended)

 

4. The state must work toward establishing good, and provide all of its means, and prohibit evil, and deter aginst it by all means.

 

5. The State must work toward the unification of all Muslims all over the world, in deed, and to feel their plight similar to how the human body senses its self , the whole body feeling pain when part of it is in pain. ( Hadeeth)

 

6. The state must provide for its citizens basic needs of shelter, food , education, healthcare, and specially for the physically or mentally disabled, or the unemployed, State shall not differentiate beneficiaries by social status or ethnic previllage.

 

7. All citizens without distinction are equal under the Sharia, such as protection of life, property, dignity, freedom of worship, personal freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom to travel without hindrance, freedom of association, freedom of trade, equalm opprtunity for employement and advancemenmt, and equality for reecieving public assistance.

 

8. No citizen should be denied any of the above rights without a legal decree from Islamic Sharia, no one should be punished without due process of law in an impartial court applying the sharia and extracting its legitimacy from Quraan and sunnah, and allowance for self defense aginst charges.

 

9. The head of state should be Muslim, Male, Dependable,with clean record, Credible, just, known for his piety, thoughtful and careful decision making method.

 

10. The head of state should be the Chief Executive of affairs, with previllage to delegate parts of his duties to a person or an institution that he trusts.

 

11. Head of state should consult according to Shuraa principle with people of knowledge in the specific fields, Ahulul Xal wal caqd (Those most knowledgeable in the Sharia) He should not dictate without consulting them.

 

12. Head of state should not make any law ineffective, partially or as a whole, and he should not dictate without first conferring with the shuraa committee.

 

13. The public represented by the ahlul Xal wal caqd ( Those most knowledgeable in the Sharia) reserve the right to elect the head of state, or to relieve him of his responsibility with a majority as Islam has prescribed.

 

14.Head of State has no immunity against the Sharia law, he is equal with all citizens in right and responsibilities.

 

15. Members of government, its employees and the public should follow a single process and system, and should equally stand before a public court in the land.

 

16. The Judicial branch should be separate and independent from the executive branch for passing judgements.

 

17. No interpretation of any law is allowed if its not in line with quraan and sunnah.

 

18. State will not tolerate any advocacy activity that clearly opposes Islamic principles, threatening the very existence of the nation.

 

Questions:

 

 

1.Based on the above, which comes first the state with its conditions, or the Sharia?

 

2. We have seen Sharia declared all over the world, from States in Nigeria to Indonesia, where in the spectrum of above are they fitting?

 

3. You say, that perfection should not be the goal, how much of the above conditions do you see important?

 

4. I am sure that you agree that Walaa ( allegiance) should be for Allah ALONE, what happenes when its for the Tribe? the rescent clash in Mogadishu was immediately switched from Jihad to targeting a tribe. Walaa being part of tawheed, is it well understood that its for Allah? is it a minor thing in your opinion?

 

 

Now, my answers to some of your questions.

 

I believe that residents of mogadishu have every right to defend themselves, properties and dignity and faith, if they choose islam as their faith, its should not be for convenience, its a complete set of a devine regimen, applying parts of it and discarding parts is more damaging to Islam as a brand as it makes it ineffective. ( The Sharia will only be applied on common thiefs, not on powerful head of Qabiil)

 

From architecture point of view if you will ( or Anarchitecture in our case), the question that bounces back at you for your suggestion is, if we have to build a wholesome house, shouldnt all parts of the house be designed in a way that will complemet each other? shouldnt they all conform to a standard upon which they will all aspects seamlessly fit?

 

As for your theory of gradual application, in a way I find it conflicting with your previously held stand ( Qowlul Qadeem) that we should stick with Quraan and Sunnah to the fullest without compromise, for which I have shifted my views of gradual change and preferred yours to my old view, its precisely the same argument that will accomodate a female head of state as a need based solution for the Ummah at these troubling times, if we indeed open the door to this gradual change theory, like science of genetics, no one will know where it will lead, its scary at best, we need either a past history of success following this method, or a detailed strategy of how it will happen, you know me, I am flexible, I dont have a permanent position on any issue, just a permanant search of Allah through the guidance of His prophet SAWS Sunnah.

 

 

Finally about your question on Maqaasidul Shariica on this issue?

 

You see Xiin walaal, Fiqhul Usuul and Maqaasidul Shariica are two complementary disciplines in islamic Jurisprudnece:

 

1. Fiqhul Usuul, deals with how things are. Its based on proofs ( addillah). In other words, the letter of the law.

 

2. Maqaasidul Shariica, deals with how things can be. Its based on what the lawmaker intended behind legislation. In other words, the Moral of The law

 

In the application of Sharia law, Maqasidul Sharia places the protection of the Sharia in the first priority level, one notch higher than the protection of life, as you have seen, if Sharia is in place human life, property and dignity can be protected, if its not, then we shall continue in the anarchy in Somalia.? therefore, in order to apply the sharia fully, as first priority, all necessary means must be considered, however, it should never be compromised expediciously due to a passing need.

 

 

Nur

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

 

 

RealityCheck,

 

I see you're still badgering Nur. Perhaps time for restraining order.

I would hardly call my post to Nur "badgering". At best, it was challenging.

 

 

Now, go away.